Ha, you tricked me.. I was looking at the println and thinking.. you don’t 
really want those there.. do you???? But I assumed you had that covered… so.. 
stupid makes two…. ;-)

— Kirk

> On Dec 27, 2017, at 11:23 AM, Peter Veentjer <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Kirk,
> 
> thanks for your reply.
> 
> Unfortunately I'm made a very shameful mistake. The println at the end of the 
> loop always gets called; even if nothing is found. And I made the content so 
> that the query would not find anything since I'm currently not yet able to 
> return a result. So the initial loop never has a println and the second loop 
> always has a println. 
> 
> After I added a guard to the println in the second loop, the performance of 
> both loops is exactly the same. So it wasn't a JIT issue after all, but just 
> plain stupidity.
> 
> On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 11:21:05 AM UTC+2, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> Can you make count a field and rerun? Not sure the for loop is being unrolled 
> in either case as the index is a long. I’ve not checked unrolling but using a 
> long can cause the JIT to miss optimizations that it would normally apply if 
> an int was used instead. You might want to see what JITWatch can tell you.
> 
> — Kirk
> 
>> On Dec 27, 2017, at 10:09 AM, Peter Veentjer <[email protected] 
>> <javascript:>> wrote:
>> 
>> As part of an experiment, I'm working on querying large volumes of data 
>> which is stored offheap.
>> 
>> The content of each record is stored in a chunk of offheap memory. So 
>> instead of having an array of object references, it is an array of records 
>> (no pointer chasing).
>> 
>> My confusion is about some code I'm generating based on the query content. 
>> There are 2 flavors; one flavor where I'm printing if I found something and 
>> the other flavor increments a local long variable and print this at the end 
>> of the loop.
>> 
>> The strange thing is that the first one (printing when the correct entry is 
>> found), is 15x faster than the one where I'm increasing the local counter. 
>> 
>> So this is the first:
>> 
>> import java.util.*;
>> public class FullTableScan_e872b2bd8f274cc18b37ac2a0e3df2ed extends 
>> com.hazelcast.simplemap.impl.FullTableScan{
>>     public void run(){
>>        long offset=slabPointer;
>>        for(long l=0;l<recordIndex;l++){
>>            if((unsafe.getInt(offset+12)==10000) && 
>> (unsafe.getBoolean(null,offset+16)==true)){
>>                 System.out.println("found");
>>            }
>>            offset+=recordDataSize;
>>         }
>> 
>>     }
>>     public void init(Map<String, Object> binding){
>>     }
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> And this is the second:
>> import java.util.*;
>> public class FullTableScan_e872b2bd8f274cc18b37ac2a0e3df2ed extends 
>> com.hazelcast.simplemap.impl.FullTableScan{
>>     public void run(){
>>        long offset=slabPointer;
>>        long count = 0;
>>        for(long l=0;l<recordIndex;l++){
>>            if((unsafe.getInt(offset+12)==10000) && 
>> (unsafe.getBoolean(null,offset+16)==true)){
>>                 count++;
>>            }
>>            offset+=recordDataSize;
>>         }
>>        System.out.println("count:"+count);
>>     }
>>     public void init(Map<String, Object> binding){
>>     }
>> }
>> 
>> What could be the reason of this huge performance difference? It isn't a 
>> warmup problem since it was running for 5 minutes. Could there be some data 
>> dependency with the second loop that prevents the loop to be unrolled? I 
>> should analyze the assembler; perhaps this will shed some light on the 
>> situation.
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "mechanical-sympathy" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "mechanical-sympathy" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"mechanical-sympathy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to